• Decq@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    268
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    This is just pure fabricated bullshit. They themselves started limiting options. Remember the old days where you could host your own server with basically any game? They took that away, not us. So they themselves are 100% responsible for this ‘uprising’. Besides they could just provide/open-source the backend and disable drm. Hardly any work at all.

    But of course it’s not about that. They just try to hide behind this ‘limits options’ argument. But they simply don’t want you to be able to play their old games. They want you to buy their latest CoD 42.

    • FreeLikeGNU@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      21 hours ago

      I remember the “old days”. That was when dialup internet was still popular and running a server usually meant it was on your 10Mb LAN. When we got DSL it was better and you could serve outside your LAN. This was also the time when games had dark red code booklets, required having a physical CD inserted or weirdly formatted floppies (sometimes a combination of these). You could get around these things and many groups of people worked hard at providing these workarounds. Today, many of these games are only playable and only still exist because of the thankless work these groups did. As it was and as it is has not changed. Many groups of people are still keeping games playable despite the “war” that corporations wage on them (and by proxy on us). Ironically, now that there is such a thing as “classic games” and people are nostalgic for what brought them joy in the past, business has leapt at this as a marketing opportunity. What makes that ironic? These business are re-selling the versions of games with the circumvention patches that the community made to make their games playable so long ago. The patches that publishers had such a big problem with and sought to eradicate. This is because the original code no longer exists and the un-patched games will not run at all on modern hardware and the copy-protections will not tolerate a virtual machine. Nothing has changed.

      We can even go back as far as when people first started making books or maps that had deliberate errors so that they could track when their work was redistributed. Do the people referencing these books or maps benefit from these errors?

      Why do some of us feel compelled to limit knowledge even at the cost of corrupting that knowledge for those we intend it for (and for those long after who wish to learn from historical knowledge)?

    • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      73
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      2 days ago

      Let’s be real, open sourcing it isn’t “hardly any work”. All the code has to be reviewed to make sure they can legally release it, no third-party proprietary stuff.

      • WIZARD POPE💫@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        95
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Oh but with the new rules they could do that before making their code work that way. The idea is not for the new laws to apply retroactively but for new games.

        • Jeffool @lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          16
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          I think your response is coming off as kinda “oh just do it different”. But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things. (And still spend time and money evaluating things at the end, just to be sure nothing slipped through.) I’m in favor of this at least being looked at and honest conversations happening, (which will not happen without this.) But there will certainly be an adjustment period where people on ground level learn and develop new “best practices”. And invariably someone will screw up. The companies are obviously only worried about money. They’ll get over it, is my opinion. But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money. And that’s open sourcing or just creating a new mode for offline play in everything.

          • AtariDump@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            20
            ·
            2 days ago

            But that still means an entire industry of people are going to have to change how they make things.

            Companies do that all the time in response to government regulation. You like seat belts and backup cameras in your car? No sawdust in your food? Transparent pricing when buying internet access? Government regulation. None of those companies went out of business.

            • Jeffool @lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              This is exactly why I said:

              But I think it’s worth communicating that we all understand new government regulation is likely going to be a pain in the ass. We just think it’s worth the pain/money.

      • snooggums@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        45
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        2 days ago

        When starting a new game, don’t include that stuff. Not including proprietary stuff without meeting the licensing requirements is already a step in the process.

        • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          16
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          2 days ago

          There is a reason it’s included though. Stuff like fmod, bink video etc. does complicated things that you otherwise need to implement yourself.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            42
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            When the law passes, the owners of proprietary functionality will adapt their licensing to meet the requirrments or go out of business when everyone stops using them.

            • truthfultemporarily@feddit.org
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              Look I get it. The planet is dying, income inequality, it seems everything is unfair and going to shit. People yearn at an opportunity to help make things better. But yelling for simple solutions is the opposite of helpful. Because there are no simple solutions.

              Saying to “just open source it” does not make sense.

              What do you do about:

              • proprietary codecs
              • proprietary software that just does not exist as open source
              • the fact you need a copy of the game engine to actually build the game from sources
              • assets that have been bought on asset stores. Do the people who make those for a living not have a right to continue to make a living?

              Making single player games without always online DRM: yes totally doable

              Running game servers of online games forever: not really doable, as soon as all the libraries etc. they depend on are unsupported they will shut down one way or another. You need staff basically forever. Not even mentioning the maintenance headache that every legacy system always turns into.

              Letting people run their own dedicated servers: sometimes doable, depends on the game though. Some games do not have “a server” but a whole infrastructure of stuff, look at foxhole. Some “servers” are a house of cards barely held together by duct tape.

              This initiative all comes down to the definition of “reasonable”. What is reasonable, actually? Running an infrastructure at a loss until bankruptcy? Or just keeping it online until it starts making a loss.

              • snooggums@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                This has nothing to do with open source.

                Nothing.

                Open source has zero relevance.

                None whatsoever.

                Nada.

                Their licensing will change so that it doesn’t restrict keeping the game alive after servers go down or their license can’t be used to kill an otherwise functional game. That’s it.

                Games will be designed to include the ability to do private servers after the company servers go down. It will be a cost of development just like anything else they are required to do. If they don’t want to include that, then they can choose not to make an online game.

        • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          arrow-down
          12
          ·
          2 days ago

          “That stuff” is often core to the game. Any anti-cheat library, for example. On the client site, libraries like physx, bink video, and others are all proprietary and must be replaced and tested before it can be released in a working state. Few companies would release a non-functional game and let reviewers drag them through the mud for it.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            43
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            None of those things will be affected because this isn’t about making games open source. It is about making games that have a design that allows them to potentially function indefinitely instead of allowing the companies to design them with planned obsolescence like tying single player games to server verification.

          • Sconrad122@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            25
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            So you’re telling me that this could disrupt the anti-cheat industry, which is currently responsible for a lot of the Windows platform lock in the gaming industry and is tied to a lot of potential security vulnerabilities because it goes to a much higher level of privilege than a reasonable user would expect a game to need? I already wish I was in the right geographic area to sign, you don’t need to sell me on it twice!

            • mang0@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              6
              arrow-down
              6
              ·
              2 days ago

              Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games. No one wants to play a game against cheaters since they typically have an unfair advantage. If you can’t combat cheating then you might as well not make the game since no one will want to play it. Fine by me since I don’t care for such games but I could imagine people who like playing them might prefer to play against as few cheaters as possible. What are the alternatives?

              • dovahking@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 day ago

                Battlefield and cod have cheaters running rampant in their official servers despite using anti cheats. They could employ a team to monitor cheating reported by players. But clearly they just don’t want to expend resources to combat that.

              • AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                11
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                2 days ago

                EvE Online doesn’t use root access anticheat software. I know it doesn’t because it runs on Linux just fine. That particular player base is the worst hive of scum and villainy that you’ll find outside of government. Clearly the anticheat software isn’t as essential as game studios would have you believe. The only major cheating I’m aware of in EvE was the BoB scandal, and that involved Devs cheating because they were Devs.

              • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                2 days ago

                Anti-cheat is a necessary evil for competitive online games

                Client-side anti-cheat is useless. It’s not a necessary evil, it’s just evil. The minute the cheater/hacker has direct access to the system, you’ve already lost.

                • mang0@lemmy.zip
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  2 days ago

                  Much like every form of security measure, the intention is not to completely eliminate the possibility of an attack (which is impossible in most cases). Instead, the intention is to increase the amount of effort that’s required to make an attack.

                  • CeeBee_Eh@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    3
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    2 days ago

                    What you’re referring to is deterrence, and it doesn’t apply to online gaming the way it does to theft of property. One cheater doesn’t ruin the game for one other person, they ruin the game for dozens or hundreds of other players.

                    And the efficacy being so bad is the reason why client-side anti-cheat keeps getting more and more invasive to the point of being literally, by definition, a type of malware and system rootkit. And yet it’s still not enough to defeat cheaters, because the cheaters have full access to the system itself.

                    And the guys writing the cheat software just have to put in the effort once to defeat the anti-cheat and then they sell it to people who install it like any other software. The cheaters who use the cheats have it easy.

          • Bravo@eviltoast.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            This is why code should be written to be library-agnostic. Or, rather, libraries should be written to a particular open source interface standard to make library agnosticism easier.

      • cecilkorik@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        ·
        2 days ago

        It will be hardly any work once a law passes, because they’ll make sure it is. Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).

        Besides, no one is saying they have to open source it. To be honest, the outcome from this petition that I would most like to see is simply a blanket indemnity to the community attempting to revive, continue and improve the software from that point forward. If the law says that it’s legal once a software is shut down, for the community to figure out a way to make it work again and make it their own, and puts no further responsibilities on the “rights holder” at all, I think that honestly solves the problem in 99% of cases. It would be nice if they gave the community a hand, released what they could, and tried not to be shit about it, (and I know some of them will be shit about it, but we’re pretty resourceful), as long as they’re not trying to sue every attempt into oblivion I think we’ll make a lot of progress on game preservation and make the gaming world a much better place.

        • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 days ago

          Everyone knows where the proprietary code is. It doesn’t just get merged in “by accident” unless you are a really shit developer (and to be fair some are).

          Heh. You are still overestimating the average developer. Random code gets copy-pasted into files without attribution all the time. One guy might know, but if he gets moved to a different team, the new guy has no idea. That can be a ticking legal time-bomb.

          • Jakeroxs@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            9
            ·
            2 days ago

            Again, if you know going in that is an absolute requirement, processes can be put in place to ensure things like that doesn’t happen. (at least not as often) vs what you’re thinking of trying to do it after the game is already shipped.

      • Decq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        17
        ·
        2 days ago

        That’s why i also said provide, not just open source. They can release a binary.

        • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          2 days ago

          What? There’s a big difference between “legal to sell as a compiled binary” and “legal to release as source”.

          • SlartyBartFast@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            2 days ago

            Just saying, if my highschool programming classes are any indicator, there’s a ton of released binaries out there that use copywritten and otherwise plaigarized code

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              2 days ago

              And that’s one of the big reasons companies don’t even think about open-sourcing their code.

      • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        honestly with online only games i’d be “okay” (not that it’d be great but okay) with them just releasing a bunch of internal docs around the spec. you’re right that open sourcing commercial code is actually non-trivial (though perhaps if they went in knowing this would have to be the outcome then maybe they’d plan better for it), but giving the community the resources to recreate the experience i think is a valid direction

        • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          2 days ago

          Bold of you to assume such spec or docs exist. Usually it’s all cowboyed and tightly coupled, with no planning for reuse.

          • snooggums@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            2 days ago

            Cool, so after they are legally required to then they will start creating the documentation.

            The point is making them change how they do things when how they do it is shitty for consumers.

    • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      2 days ago

      I’m speaking from ignorance but isn’t the server backend often licensed and they couldn’t release it if they wanted, even as binaries? Granted, going forward they’d have to make those considerations before they accept restrictive licenses in core parts of their game. And the market for those licenses will change accordingly. So there core of your argument is correct.

      • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        28
        ·
        2 days ago

        lots of licensed or bought code in development in general, but knowing that you’ll have to provide code to the public eventually, means that you’ll have to take this into consideration when starting a project.

          • Dunstabzugshaubitze@feddit.org
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            22
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            2 days ago

            codifying in law that your customers must be able to run a server for your game, when you stop running them has the consequence, that you’ll have to buy licenses that allow you to give binaries or code for those things to your customers. every middleware or library that does not allow that won’t be a viable product anymore. It’s not more dev work, it will change how licensing in game development for middleware and such will be done.

            • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              2 days ago

              Because you can buy other people’s code for cheaper than developing it yourself, as long as you use it within the restrictions of the license you paid for.

              • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                2 days ago

                The thing is either that license model changes, or those other companies selling the code cease to exist when nobody buys something they can’t use.

            • SheeEttin@lemmy.zip
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              It doesn’t, that’s why companies rarely open-source their code. If you want to publish it you have to make sure you have all the rights to do so, you have to code in a way that’s readable for outside users, you have to make sure people can reproduce your build process, and ideally you provide support.

              On the other hand, if you’re not developing the source for publication, you can leave undocumented dirty hacks, only have to make sure it builds on your machine, and include third-party proprietary code wherever you want. That’s faster and cheaper, so naturally companies will prefer it.

              • BassTurd@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                8
                ·
                2 days ago

                There’s no requirement that the open source code released after EoL has to be pretty or maintained, just functional to meet legal requirements. Using other 3rd party code would be a hurdle to get over I suppose. It would definitely take a different approach to design, but after the initial shock of changing, it wouldn’t be more difficult to do long term.

      • Decq@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Maybe so, but that’s a decision they make. Surely I as customer shouldn’t be taken away what i paid for because of that? And if so they should have mentioned clearly upon sale that they would take away my product after 3-4 years (though maybe that’s the case in those dense ToS?) . Everything else should be considered illegal and fraudulent if they planned/knew it from the start. Which is the case if it’s a licensing issue

        Besides, I’m pretty sure after those 4 years the code is outdated and they could renegotiate the license to be more open to release a binary.